Republican ideology reflects moral failure

GOP priorities are steeped in moral failings, says Katrina Vanden Heuvel in the Washington Post. From reducing social services for the poor to allowing tax cuts for the rich, moral righteousness is the rhetoric used to justify immoral policies, she says.

Talk about hitting the nail on the head. I can already feel the Ayn Rand absolutists cringing, as they try to decide whether they should respond by running this through their doctrinaire filter, or just ignore what will prove to be an embarrassment, if they are foolish enough to try to respond to what she laid out so perfectly.

Very few people are against assistance for the truly needy. The moral failure is when millions of people of sound health and mind are encouraged to be utterly dependent on the government. There is so much more that these individuals could accomplish with their lives.

Jason – Way to jump in and blame the poor, victims that are specifically kept that way so the very rich (who get reams of government largess, or don’t pay their fair share to begin with) will have someone for the much abused middle-class to vent their spleen against, instead of focusing on the institutionalized thieves at the top of the economic heap. As long as they can split society and pit those elements against each other, they can apply the old “divide and conquer” tactic to further feather their nests, and keep their heads when the you know what (that their selfish concentration of wealth guarantees will happen), hits the fan.

Right on. . . .I always thought that if these “moral” right wingers were to actually come across Jesus, they would shout him down as an unamerican, commie, hippie freak. I didn’t see anything remotely sounding like saying Republicans are devil worshippers or giving away the farm for welfare abuse . . .but that’s always a tactic of those who’s egos have been threatened – to lash out with nonsense against arguments that haven’t been made.

iknowtruthismine, I’m not blaming those on assistance. I specifically stated that it’s wrong for the government to push individuals who are capable of taking care of themselves onto assistance. I actually agree with you that we have a system that tends to keep people down and dependent by creating barriers that prevent them from improving their own lives. However, we clearly disagree on the details.

Jason – We disagree about the motives of those who, by their actions to maintain a class of people to be blamed for all of society’s faults, concentrate more and more wealth to the top, while at the same time calling for cutbacks (or denial) of essential services, like quality education and universal health care, which would by itself fix many of the problems of not only the poor, but of the entire society. What is going on is deliberate action to establish a new order based on the rule of wealth, which, has no interest in anything else but their own well being. Listen to what Romney is saying, as he is not even clever enough to hide his biased attitude and his totally out of touch elitist mind-set. They, having taken so much for themselves (about 4000 individuals own 1/2 of EVERYTHING), are loath to spend any of it to redress the problems they have caused servicing their greed. They can’t have it all, but act as if they can, and if they can establish plutocratic rule (ending our noble experiment in representative democracy) they will only be setting us up for the type of revolt that beheaded so many of their counterparts in 18th century France.

What? Increasing taxes and spending more on education and Obamacare will solve the problems of the poor? In 1960 we spent $2,808 per student (2011 dollars) according to the National Center of Education Statistics. In 2011 New York State spent $18,126. Your solution hasn’t exactly solved the problems of the poor. Obamacare will result in overall reduced health care for everyone and create staggering debt. I work in the healthcare world and the solution is to first reduce costs and then extend care to everyone…the opposite approach will not work. Dramatically increasing taxes and spending where it clearly hasn’t worked does not make one a moral individual.

Steve – Concentrating 1/2 of all wealth in the pockets of about 4000 people, is not the answer, so I wonder why you continue to argue their cause. The other half of everything that constitutes wealth is also skewered to those at the top of the remaining 316 million of the rest of us, and the only equalization factors that count are knowledge (gained through education) and good health, to insure that once gained, knowledge and the ability to use it, can be utilized productively. What you dogmatically support will only lead to a two class society of haves and have-nots, in a wealth dominated plutocratic type of feudalism.

iknowtruthismine-read my last comment and try to concentrate…I’m not arguing anyone’s cause. I’m not obsessed with defending or hating the wealthy. I provided you with a concise observation. Knowledge doesn’t start or stop with formal education…it is a lifelong process and depends on one’s individual hunger to learn. Right now everyone in America can get health treatment. Some pay some don’t. You left out the most important factor for equality and that is opportunity. No excuses…anyone has the opportunity to become one of the hated super rich. Please refrain from using tired phrases like “wealth dominated plutocratic type of feudalism”.

Gee Steven, how could I possibly argue against someone who thinks the best way to fix complex problems deliberately made so, over our 200+ year existence, by lawyers, whose job it is to make things complicated for the benefit of wealth driven elites they serve (and aspire to be) than to turn off my brain and adopt the naivete of an eight year old? Why don’t we kill all the scientists while we are at it too, as they have exceeded the level of understanding necessary to function rationally in the reality you propose? Please, don’t insult my intelligence with any more of that.